Are digital images good enough? A comparative study of conventional film-screen vs digital radiographs on printed images of total hip replacement

被引:9
作者
Eklund, K [1 ]
Jonsson, K
Lindblom, G
Lundin, B
Sanfridsson, J
Sloth, M
Sivberg, B
机构
[1] Univ Lund Hosp, Dept Radiol, Ctr Med Imaging & Physiol, S-22185 Lund, Sweden
[2] Lund Univ, Fac Med, Dept Nursing, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
关键词
digital radiographs; analog radiographs; total hip replacement; comparative study;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-003-2126-y
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100207 [影像医学与核医学]; 1009 [特种医学];
摘要
The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter- and intra-observer variability and to find differences in diagnostic safety between digital and analog technique in diagnostic zones around hip prostheses. In 80 patients who had had a total hip replacement (THR) for more than 2 years, a conventional image and a digital image were taken. Gruen's model of seven distinct regions of interest was used for evaluations. Five experienced radiologists observed the seven regions and noted in a protocol the following distances: stem-cement; cement-bone; and stem-bone. All images were printed on hard copies and were read twice. Weighted kappa, kappa(w), analyses were used. The two most frequently loosening regions, stem-cement region 1 and cement-bone region 7, were closely analyzed. In region 1 the five observers had an agreement of 86.75-97.92% between analog and digital images in stem-cement, which is a varied kappa(w) 0.29-0.71. For cement-bone region 7 an agreement of 87.21-90.45% was found, which is a varied kappa(w) of 0.48-0.58. All the kappa values differ significantly from nil. The result shows that digital technique is as good as analog radiographs for diagnosing possible loosening of hip prostheses.
引用
收藏
页码:865 / 869
页数:5
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]
Altman D., 1991, PRACTICAL STAT MED R, V1991, P406
[2]
[Anonymous], 1979, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT RE
[3]
CHEVROT A, 1992, NICER SERIES DIAGNOS, P594
[4]
Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics [J].
Hamers, S ;
Freyschmidt, J ;
Neitzel, U .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2001, 11 (09) :1753-1759
[5]
JONSSON A, 1994, ACTA RADIOL, V35, P311
[6]
JONSSON A, 1995, ACTA RADIOL, V36, P290
[7]
Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors [J].
Kotter, E ;
Langer, M .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (10) :2562-2570
[8]
COMPARATIVE-EVALUATION OF DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY VERSUS CONVENTIONAL RADIOGRAPHY OF FRACTURED SKULLS [J].
LANGEN, HJ ;
KLEIN, HM ;
WEIN, B ;
STARGARDT, A ;
GUNTHER, RW .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1993, 28 (08) :686-689
[9]
Clinical evaluation of digital radiography based on a large-area cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector compared with screen-film radiography for skeletal system and abdomen [J].
Okamura, T ;
Tanaka, S ;
Koyama, K ;
Norihumi, N ;
Daikokuya, H ;
Matsuoka, T ;
Kishimoto, K ;
Hatagawa, M ;
Kudoh, H ;
Yamada, R .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (07) :1741-1747
[10]
PETTERSSON H, 1988, ACTA RADIOL, V29, P267